Azazello1313 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'm going to have a problem with this for my grandson. He's only 9 (going on 10) months and he just weighed in at over 27 lbs. yesterday. I thought it was rear facing for the first year not four years, but the two year posted above sounds like it could be true. There's no way that a big kid could or should be stuffed into a rear facing seat when their feet have no place to go. I would love to be able to have the grandson continue to sit rear facing for as long as he's able. I hope that is at least until he's a year old. Btw, I've looked at all the car seats at all the big box stores and some of them have a big variance in size limits. to clarify....the suggested bare MINIMUM you keep them rear-facing is one year AND 20 lbs. the reason it has two components....it's a strength thing, they figure the neck muscles are strong enough only when the kid is big enough AND old enough. so 10 months and 27 pounds, you'd be going against even the minimum recommendations to turn him around. now, rear-facing is safer in a serious (head-on) accident. it's safer for 1 year-olds, 2 year-olds, 4 year-olds....and probably for 30 year-olds as well. but at some point you run up against practicality and the utility of diminishing returns. the seats aren't designed to go past 30-35 pounds rear-facing, and of course there is nowhere to put their growing legs. so 2 years or so is probably a good, reasonable target that takes everything into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 + bajillion This isn't about what's comofortable or what the kid wants or what's practical - it's about saving your child's life and/or preventing serious injury should you get in an accident. There's no length I won't go to obtain optimal safety with my child! well, optimal safety would be not taking them out on the road at all. just sayin'.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 For y'all saying the kids don't like it... it's not about like, it's about safety. Rear-facing is more dangerous for the legs, but safer for the spine... pick one. If the kid doesn't like being alone, staring at nothing, suck it up and put a parent in the backseat instead of the front passenger seat. Get off your high-horse opie, would YOU want to ride with your legs cramped up unable to extend them for an hour? What about a longer trip? I came home from Texas (Dad was in the military) on a blanket in the car seat between the two. If you want absolute safety then you need to wrap your kid in bubble wrap and never let them do anything. I've said for years now that a male grown to adulthood without a broken bone hasn't had a proper childhood at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 So back on topic - can anyone help me find a brand that has rear-facing for over 20lbs? The following models all have above average height and/or weight limits for rear-facing use. These may allow children to face the rear for safety longer than many other models. Also listed are the rear-facing weight limits according to the manufacturer. Most of these models are taller than average, with the possible exception of the Cosco Scenera that is listed primarily as a value option. Please verify these yourself in case of errors. Please note that nearly all convertibles can be used for extended rear-facing beyond 20 pounds and models not listed may have ratings similar to the examples below. Britax Marathon/Decathlon/Boulevard/Advocate (33 or 35 lbs) Learning Curve / Compass True Fit (35 lbs) Cosco Alpha Omega Elite (35 lbs) Sunshine Kids Radian (65, 80 or XT) (35 lbs) Graco MyRide 65 (40 lbs) Evenflo Triumph Advance (35lbs) Evenflo Titan Elite (35 lbs) Cosco Scenera (35 lbs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 What your family did with you when you were a baby was acceptable back then. Also, I suspect it wasn't actually a car, but a horse-and-buggy old man. He is younger than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 What your family did with you when you were a baby was acceptable back then. Also, I suspect it wasn't actually a car, but a horse-and-buggy old man. That's part of the point - if you guys want "optimal safety" then you need to put the kid in bubble wrap, only feed him optimally, never let him ride a bike, skates or scooter, and God forbid he ever gets near a swimming pool. The point is, there IS a line to draw somewhere, and we ALL draw it in different places. There are advantages either way. Again I say, get off yer high horse and quit looking down your nose because some of us don't worry like a jewish grandmother about every little thing. BTW, I'm 36, and it was a 63.5 Ford Galaxy with a 390/4-spd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 He is younger than you. God bless Big John!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Lil West Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Interesting that the American Academy of Pediatrics is behind the times AAP 2009 Updated Guidelines I think its overkill....at some point, you have to make decisions in life as to safety vs. comfort/common sense. My kids would be protected from strangers much better if I never let them leave the house. They'd be protected from car accidents if I never let in the car at all. Their teeth would be better protected if they never once at anything with sugar. They'd be better rested and healthier if hey slept 12 hours every night. Smarter if they watched zero fun TV and just read. The list goes on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Lil West Virginia I'd never have fit in that - I was 9lbs, 5.5 oz and 22 inches long. Whomper's just jealous that his parents stuffed him in the console of their Camaro... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 The following models all have above average height and/or weight limits for rear-facing use. These may allow children to face the rear for safety longer than many other models. Also listed are the rear-facing weight limits according to the manufacturer. Most of these models are taller than average, with the possible exception of the Cosco Scenera that is listed primarily as a value option. Please verify these yourself in case of errors. Please note that nearly all convertibles can be used for extended rear-facing beyond 20 pounds and models not listed may have ratings similar to the examples below. Britax Marathon/Decathlon/Boulevard/Advocate (33 or 35 lbs) Learning Curve / Compass True Fit (35 lbs) Cosco Alpha Omega Elite (35 lbs) Sunshine Kids Radian (65, 80 or XT) (35 lbs) Graco MyRide 65 (40 lbs) Evenflo Triumph Advance (35lbs) Evenflo Titan Elite (35 lbs) Cosco Scenera (35 lbs) Thanks, this is very helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 That's part of the point - if you guys want "optimal safety" then you need to put the kid in bubble wrap, only feed him optimally, never let him ride a bike, skates or scooter, and God forbid he ever gets near a swimming pool. The point is, there IS a line to draw somewhere, and we ALL draw it in different places. There are advantages either way. Again I say, get off yer high horse and quit looking down your nose because some of us don't worry like a jewish grandmother about every little thing. BTW, I'm 36, and it was a 63.5 Ford Galaxy with a 390/4-spd. I can't see the advantage of letting your child ride in a forward-facing car seat too early. If by chance you get into an accident, the probability of serious neck or spinal injury increases. He's not going to learn anything from that experience. Comparing this to riding bikes or roller skates is apples to oranges. I get your point - but cars are death traps and anything you can do to maximize the safety you should do. You can't go 70mph on rollerskates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I can't see the advantage of letting your child ride in a forward-facing car seat too early. If by chance you get into an accident, the probability of serious neck or spinal injury increases. He's not going to learn anything from that experience. Comparing this to riding bikes or roller skates is apples to oranges. I get your point - but cars are death traps and anything you can do to maximize the safety you should do. You can't go 70mph on rollerskates. arent you the guy against stiff penalties for dui's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 We moved our little girl to a forward facing seat once she was 1 years old AND over 20 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 arent you the guy against stiff penalties for dui's? I'm against stiff penalties for non-intentional deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 arent you the guy against stiff penalties for dui's? affirmative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'm against stiff penalties for non-intentional deaths. so you say they are death traps and someone that operates a death trap knowingly impaired shouldnt get the book thrown at him?? sorry to go off topic carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 affirmative Remind me again what this has to do with child car safety and car seats. No matter how safe I make my child's car ride, I can't do anything to prevent someone else from drinking and driving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 to clarify....the suggested bare MINIMUM you keep them rear-facing is one year AND 20 lbs. the reason it has two components....it's a strength thing, they figure the neck muscles are strong enough only when the kid is big enough AND old enough. so 10 months and 27 pounds, you'd be going against even the minimum recommendations to turn him around. I wouldn't even consider having him front facing right now. But I'm a little worried that he will be a young kid that will be front facing in the near future. I'm not sure if the strength thing will be there as it would be if he were a little older. I'm very sure that we will go above and beyond what is needed if my son or wife have any say in it. They do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 My kid just turned two yesterday - he's 98% across the board in height and weight so there's no way his 32lb 3 ft frame is fitting in a rear facing seat unless I cram him in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 My kid just turned two yesterday - he's 98% across the board in height and weight so there's no way his 32lb 3 ft frame is fitting in a rear facing seat unless I cram him in there. Little Twiley is diesel . God bless him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 My kid just turned two yesterday - he's 98% across the board in height and weight so there's no way his 32lb 3 ft frame is fitting in a rear facing seat unless I cram him in there. Clearly he is not yours..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Clearly he is not yours..... I considered that - luckily my dad is 6-5 and her dad is 6-3 so tall does run in the family. I thought I had a QB in the making at first, looks like OT or TE now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 If the kid is bored cuz he's facing backwards, then hook up a DVD player. Not sure that would be safe in a head on collision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 wow, you're really uptight today. I never drew a line in what you or anyone should do. I did imply that those excuses were lame and I still think that. If the kid is bored cuz he's facing backwards, then hook up a DVD player. If he's lonely, then sit there with him. How is that a high-horse attitude? PS: I was trying to make a joke in my previous post to defuse the situation that you think happened, but whatever. I'm sorry, I did misread you. It's the sarchasm on the innerwebs. Lemme guess though, you only have one young child though, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.